On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 06:30:33PM -0500, Len Brown wrote:

On 02/06/2012 11:31 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Feb 06, 2012 at 08:17:11AM -0800, Andi Kleen wrote:

quoted

+#define reduction_pctg(cpu) \
+	per_cpu(cpufreq_thermal_reduction_pctg, phys_package_first_cpu(cpu))

I don't like using percentages here - we end up with the potential for 
several percentages to end up mapping to the same P state.

Does it matter?

If you step through multiple percentages that map to the same P state, 
yes. On the other hand, re-reading the specification, it seems that this 
is the behaviour envisaged in the polling equation. I guess we'll stick 
with that.

-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org